ISSN: 1968-2065    

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Kruse, N. B. (2015). “I’m supposed to enjoy teaching, but I just dread this”: Preservice teachers’ reflections on field experience teaching episodes. Visions of Research in Music Education, 26. Retrieved from http://www.rider.edu/~vrme  

“I’m supposed to enjoy teaching, but I just dread this”:

Preservice teachers’ reflections on field experience teaching episodes

By

Nathan B. Kruse Case Western Reserve University

Abstract

 The purpose of this research was to examine preservice teachers’ journal reflections that were associated with school-based teaching episodes in an instrumental music education methods course. The specific research questions associated with this study included (a) What topics do preservice teachers choose to discuss in their semi-weekly journals and (b) Which topics are discussed most frequently? Over the course of 6 weeks, seven preservice music teachers submitted 72 journal entries that were based on an open-ended, non-directional prompt. Through a content analysis design, journal entries were examined for meaningful statements and trends. Findings included four broad categories, which encompassed the internal, interpersonal, pedagogical, and environmental issues that preservice teachers addressed in their journals. Revelations about teaching, positive interactions with students, rehearsal techniques, and distracting climates were common references.

Keywords: content analysis, field experience, preservice music teachers, reflection journals, school-university partnerships, teacher education

 

2

A common objective in music teacher preparation programs is fostering reflective

practice among preservice teachers (Baumgartner, 2011; Conkling, 2003). Such reflection can

help create effective teachers (Polk, 2006), connections between theory and practice (Burton &

Greher, 2007; Powell, 2010), and notions of appropriate teaching traits (Berg & Miksza, 2010;

Schmidt, 1998). School-university partnerships and other field experience opportunities are often

some of the most direct ways for preservice music teachers to engage in the reflective process.

During field experience teaching episodes, preservice teachers are tasked with accessing,

assimilating, and implementing various strands of university coursework into their teaching, such

as lesson planning, teacher persona, rehearsal strategies, and critical thinking. Through these

transformative events, novice teachers typically learn to adjust their worldviews and perspectives

regarding music teaching and learning, as well as its place within the educational system

(Baumgartner, 2011; Conkling, 2003). Promoting self-reflections on teaching episodes might be

one way for preservice teachers to voice their successes, concerns, and questions about the

teaching process, and their roles as future music educators.

Reflection journals have been one such tool for capturing preservice teachers’

experiences in the field (Baumgartner, 2011; Campbell & Brummett, 2007; Conkling, 2003;

Conway, 1997; Lindroth, 2014; Siebenaler, 2005). Journals are often an experiential yet required

component found in university methods courses that incorporate observations and teaching in

school-based settings, such as professional development schools (Abdal-Haqq, 1989; Conkling,

2007). Through documenting and reflecting purposefully on teaching episodes, preservice

teachers are given a platform for deconstructing their own teaching as well as the learning

processes of their students, and, in turn, can approach future teaching episodes with heightened

foresight and problem solving skills. As Lindroth (2014) explained, “Purposeful reflection

 

3

reduces random decision-making and allows an individual to make choices by carefully

examining information gathered from various experiences, resulting in purposeful thinking” (p.

1).

Reflection journals also have the potential to assist preservice teachers in reaching more

sophisticated levels of self-awareness. Moore (2003) found that student journal entries indicated

a shift away from educational theory and toward classroom-centered concerns, such as lesson

planning and classroom management. Similarly, Beeth and Adadan (2006) reported that

preservice teacher journal entries revealed a rapid shift of focus away from themselves and onto

their students. In addition, Bullough (1991) found that journaling was useful in cultivating

teacher identity among preservice teachers. As student-centered, constructivist tools used in

university coursework (Baumgartner, 2011; Moore, 2003), journals can be useful in helping

novice teachers to work through field experience teaching episodes and to create solutions for

future teaching.

Journaling practices as a whole are not without challenges, however. Research has

indicated that it can be difficult for students to implement learning objectives derived from

lesson plan reflection, and that students experience anxiety over providing clear instructions and

maintaining classroom management (Tarnowski, 1997). Preservice teachers also can vary in the

ways they view events in the classroom as well as how they sort out their own experiences

(Baumgartner, 2011; Conkling, 2003; Grant, 2001). Furthermore, despite their potential for rich

data, participant journals can be an inconsistent data source (Conway, 1997), because the degree

of contribution can vary among participants, as Conway and Hodgman (2008) found. Due to lack

of time, will, memory, or investment, participants may be unpredictable with regard to journal

entry submissions, which can impact the depth of data that can be obtained. When coupled with

 

4

methods courses, the process of assessing journals can be an ongoing consideration for teacher

educators (Lee, 2005). In order to alleviate obstacles of irregularity and superficiality in

reflective journaling, Knapp (2012) recommended that teacher educators mentor students in

reflective practices, rather than assuming students know how to use journals effectively.

Often, researchers and teacher educators create guided reflection prompts for preservice

teachers as a support structure for eliciting meaningful reflection, as featured in Siebenaler

(2005) and Baumgartner (2011). Structured prompts can stimulate critical thinking, naturalize

pedagogical thought processes, and engender transfer to future teaching, the latter of which can

be difficult without reflection (Silcox, 1995). Journals also have been considered a form of action

research (Bullough, 1991), and can be used as a way to gauge the depth of understanding

surrounding pedagogical events that unfold in classrooms. Given that most preservice teachers

hold varying perspectives with regard to their own experiences in the field (Conkling, 2003;

Grant, 2001), it is logical to consider that journals, in some way, might reveal diverse and

intriguing perceptions along a continuum. Field experience teaching episodes might take on new

meaning when preservice music teachers are responsible for preparing music, planning

instruction, teaching the content, and then critically reflecting on that instruction. Of particular

interest to the current study are the ways in which preservice music teachers might respond to a

single, open-ended prompt, rather than multiple reflective prompts that guide thinking and target

specific classroom events.

This study represents the fourth and final installment in a series of articles designed to

examine the contextual and collaborative underpinnings of a set of school-university

partnerships. Previous studies on these specific partnerships have featured various

methodological approaches in an attempt to construct a holistic view of the collaborations,

 

5

including the sociological nature of school-university partnerships (Kruse, 2011b), the rewards

and challenges of partnerships as cited by preservice and in-service stakeholders (Kruse, 2011a),

and the assessment of partnerships as cited by middle school and high school band students

(Kruse, 2012). The present study returns to preservice teachers’ worldviews about field

experience teaching episodes and includes a methodology that has not been used in the

aforementioned series of articles. In this research, a content analysis of student reflection

journals was conducted to identify and follow trends in the content that students chose to address

in their entries. The specific research questions associated with this study included (a) What

topics do preservice teachers choose to discuss in their semi-weekly journals and (b) Which

topics are discussed most frequently?

Method

Context

This research centered on journal entries that were associated with school-based teaching

episodes in an instrumental music education methods course at a large southern university. The

course was designed for college seniors who were about to enter student teaching and acquainted

preservice music teachers with rehearsal objectives, instructional techniques, and materials

specific to middle school bands. Site-based teaching episodes in two separate school districts

were folded into the curriculum so that students could benefit from hands-on experience with

middle school and early high school instrumentalists. These teaching episodes, which typically

lasted between 5 and 20 minutes twice per week, included lessons that focused on a combination

of concert band music, marching band music, sight-reading, and method book examples. Self-

evaluation and reflection were integral components of the course, as students maintained field

experience journals that they submitted between teaching cycles.

 

6

Participants

Participants included seven preservice music teachers, who were senior music education

majors at the time of this study. These students represented 38% of the entire course enrollment,

since not every student in the class opted to participate in this research. During previous

semesters, all students submitted bi-weekly journals as part of the course requirements. Due to

the voluntary nature of this research, however, only those students who participated in the study

were expected to submit journal entries, although these were not assessed as in previous

semesters and were used solely as research data. This helped alleviate, in part, the complexities

related to teacher-student power differentials and graded assignments. Non-participants enrolled

in the course did not submit reflection journals.

Participants included four female students and three male students, representing

woodwind, brass, and percussion players. Prior to this course, each student had completed a full

complement of undergraduate coursework leading to teacher certification. Thus, it was assumed

that participants had some level of teaching proficiency from skills acquired during instrumental

technique classes, music education methods courses, and conducting labs. This particular

instrumental methods course served as the students’ final methods class before student teaching,

which, for the participants in this research, occurred the semester following the completion of

this study.

Design and Procedures

This research took place during the span of one semester and was based on a content

analysis design (Neuendorf, 2002). Content analysis has the flexibility to both quantify and

qualify communications, and to generate findings within a given context (2002). Because all data

sources in the current study were students’ written communications, a content analysis design

 

7

was deemed an appropriate method for examining these artifacts. This study also incorporated

the type of teaching journals as described by Lee (2008), who sought to categorize journal entries

that captured preservice teachers’ thoughts and responses during teaching episodes.

Over the course of 6 weeks and 12 school-based teaching episodes, the seven

participating students submitted 72 journal entries, which were based on the following sole

prompt: Describe your site-based experience today. An open-ended, non-directional prompt was

selected so that students could exercise autonomy in reflecting on and responding to their 12

individual teaching episodes, and to reduce the possibility of imposed responses due to specific

journal cues that targeted certain classroom events (e.g., rehearsal techniques, classroom

management, lesson planning, student engagement, transfer). Of particular interest were the

ways in which preservice teachers would reflect on their teaching episodes without guidance.

Due to submission rate mortality, 12 journal entries were not submitted; thus, the expected

number of 84 journals was reduced to 72.

The researcher analyzed 72 journal entries for frequent and meaningful statements

(Neuendorf, 2002) and grouped them into categories according to the two research questions. A

researcher-constructed tally grid was used to identify, calculate, and classify journal accounts.

The sum of each topic mentioned was analyzed within the overall journal content, and the

integrity of the categorizations and classifications of content items were maintained through peer

reviewed, intercoder reliability, which, according to Neuendorf (2002), is a chief factor in

protecting the reliability—but not necessarily the validity—of content analysis. As Neuendorf

noted, “given that a goal of content analysis is to identify and record relatively objective (or at

least intersubjective) characteristics of messages, reliability is paramount” (p. 141). Through peer

analysis of the initial findings, a faculty expert in music teacher education suggested minor

 

8

alterations for repositioning and renaming data codes, and the findings were rearranged

accordingly. The validity of the findings was verified through an additional round of peer review.

While it may not be possible to construct generalizable results from exploring the self-reported

experiences of only seven individuals, findings might reveal, in part, additional perceptions

related to field experience teaching.

Findings

Based on the analyzed journal data, 28 codes emerged and were sorted further into four

broad categories: Internal References (11 codes), Interpersonal References (4 codes),

Pedagogical References (9 codes), and Environmental References (4 codes). The aforementioned

categories and codes are described below, including the frequencies and percentages of each

topic mentioned. It is important to note that these groupings are not entirely discrete, and that

there is some overlap with regard to shared characteristics among topics. The accompanying

journal excerpts that follow are included as supporting material only and may not represent the

full meaning of the participants’ words; the level of qualitative analysis required to reveal such

meaning is beyond the scope of this study.

Internal References

Table 1 reflects the most predominant category found among the 72 journal entries,

which included numerous aspects related to Internal References while teaching. In general, these

reflections centered on students’ inner efforts and epiphanies during teaching episodes, including

issues of self-doubt and inner conflict on one end, and growth and heightened confidence on the

other. Just as one frustrated student wrote after his second “disastrous” rehearsal, “I’m supposed

to enjoy teaching, but I just dread this,” another student wrote, “I’m really doing this!”

 

9

In various ways, all students described “aha” revelations that surrounded teaching

episodes. Actualizations included the need to be clearer when giving instructions, using a louder

voice, making better eye contact, and realizing that “lesson plans can crumble,” despite one’s

level of preparation. As one student acknowledged, “I am starting to figure out through these

teaching experiences how important it is to be clear and specific while teaching.” Personal

revelations also included contradictory yet complementary statements regarding general teaching

comfort as well as extreme nervousness.

To a lesser degree, preservice teachers compared themselves to their peers, generally

noting how their peers were either better or worse than they were. One student revealed that she

was “jealous” of another student’s easy-going, natural rapport with the band students and wanted

desperately to appear that way herself, while another student questioned his peers’ handling of a

rehearsal segment that did not go as planned. In sentimental fashion, three preservice teachers

divulged that they had become attached to the middle school students and were sad to leave the

placement. Additionally, several students claimed that through site-based teaching, they had

become more aware of their mannerisms and demeanor, and how those elements impacted their

teaching. As one student wrote:

I feel like everything that I’ve learned this week, and what I need to focus on for next week, can be summed up as my change of roles. I am still a student, but I need to act like a teacher. I am not quite there yet, but I definitely need to be, and soon. When I assume the role of student while teaching, my lesson plan falls short, and I fail to keep classroom focus. When I assume the role of teacher, the students focus better, and they are set up to actually learn. I need to work on being the teacher at all times.

 

10

Table 1 Internal References Condition Frequency % Revelations 26 24% Comfort 17 16% Nervousness 16 15% Comparison to peers 14 13% Reflections 10 9% Improvement 8 7% Determination 6 6% Confidence 3 3% Self-awareness 3 3% Sadness at closure 3 3% Leadership 2 1%

Interpersonal References

The second category among journal responses dealt with Interpersonal References, which

centered on preservice teachers’ interactions with school band students. Journal entries indicated

that interpersonal skills were paramount in reinforcing the internal notions mentioned above,

because it was only through the act of teaching that many internal mechanisms could be acted

out externally, in the classroom. Each of the student conductors reported being surprised by

amiable interactions with school students, citing that building a rapport with band members was

particularly important to them. They also were astounded by students’ nurturing and supportive

personas, which softened their view of the teacher-student power structure. As one student

remarked,

I was playing saxophone as my secondary instrument, and the student sitting next to me had no problem sharing his music and reminding us of fingerings. It seemed like he was proud to show us that he knew what he was doing. Only three students explicitly mentioned observing—in a purposeful manner—various

events as they unfolded during rehearsals. One student wrote that as she watched her peers

teaching, she “saw that the students were focused on the teachers and the music,” and surmised

that this might have “something to do with the music being harder than the previous week.” She

 

11

concluded with, “It seemed like the students were asking more questions than before, which

makes me think they are comfortable with us.” The notion of positive and productive teacher-

student relationships became qualified realities in these moments. Table 2 lists the interpersonal

references discussed in students’ journals.

Table 2 Interpersonal References Association Frequency % Positive interactions with students 23 66% Student warmth 5 14% Reinforcement/retention 4 11% Observations 3 9%

Pedagogical References

Table 3 below shows the Pedagogical References that preservice teachers included in

their journal entries. These pedagogical issues became the cornerstones of discussions as to how

they believed each of their rehearsals unfolded from a teaching standpoint. Rehearsal techniques,

lessons plans, verbal communication, and conducting gestures were mentioned frequently as

something to “fix for next time,” and incorporated references such as rehearsal strategies, pacing,

whole-part-whole teaching, and clarity of verbal and gestural instructions. One student lamented

her physiological response to a lesson that did not go as intended. This may be one example that

demonstrates the overlapping, intricate relationship between pedagogical references and the

internal references discussed earlier:

I had made a lesson plan for today, but while I was teaching I forgot what I had planned to do. In the moment, I got a little flustered and I felt like I didn’t know what to work on next. For next time, I would like to try and stay calmer. Echoes of content learned in previous university coursework were sprinkled throughout

journal passages, especially with regard to selecting appropriate rehearsal strategies and

establishing a unified teacher presence through matched verbal and non-verbal communication.

 

12

Student conductors faced both frustration and success in verbalizing instructions and then

transferring those expectations to clear conducting (e.g., entrances, releases, style, dynamics,

togetherness). For the majority of students, this led to lessons that were “derailed,” but when

students’ verbal-nonverbal communication worked in tandem, their teaching segments were

spared from derailment. Other pedagogical topics included students’ ability to detect rhythmic

and tonal errors, relate concepts explicitly throughout and across rehearsals, hone classroom

management, and model passages on their primary or secondary instruments.

Table 3 Pedagogical References Skills/Abilities Frequency % Rehearsal techniques 16 23% Lesson plans 13 19% Communication (verbal) 11 16% Conducting (non-verbal) 10 14% Error detection 6 8% Derailment 5 7% Concepts 4 6% Classroom management 3 4% Modeling 3 3%

Environmental References

The fourth and final category had to do with Environmental References that, according to

preservice teachers, impacted their perceived sense of success and focus during teaching

episodes. Numerous journal entries addressed distractions within the band room itself or the

school at large, such as interruptions from PA announcements and ringing phones to commotions

due to class pictures, pep assemblies, and homecoming spirit days. One student wrote:

The students were very talkative and excited today. It is homecoming week and they were dressed up as superheroes. This experience gave us a look at how our students might be distracted when we are teachers. I think it was a little harder for my classmates to maintain the attention of the students while they were teaching because of all the distraction.

 

13

Another student shared a similar experience, along with a solution for modifying her own

teaching:

The kids seemed to be distracted today since they had a dress-up day for Drug-Free Week. They were very talkative. When I did my lesson, I tried to keep them playing as much as I could so they would not have time to talk. Still, there were positive comments regarding classroom interruptions, in that those

moments helped sharpen the improvisatory nature of their teaching. As one preservice teacher

put it, “I like being able to experience situations like this. It’s just another reminder about how

important it is to be flexible with your lesson plans.”

On occasion, the cooperating teachers served as distractors for the preservice teachers,

when they sensed that the student-led rehearsals needed to be redirected. These moments

occurred when the band was either not improving, deteriorating musically, or was being

rehearsed in a manner that, according to students, had stalled pedagogically. In these instances,

the cooperating teachers interjected with suggestions to assist the preservice teachers and to help

rehearsal segments end successfully. A lesser environmental reference included repertoire that

preservice teachers deemed too easy or too difficult, which might have affected band students’

responses to the music, and to the ways in which preservice teachers chose to structure their

rehearsals and don an appropriate disposition. As one student penned, “This music is way too

easy, so I’ll just have to be fun and entertaining so they don’t get bored.” A small percentage of

entries addressed a complication that occurred outside of the classroom altogether: car trouble on

the way to the middle school, which subsequently resulted in two students’ absence and reported

personal mortification. Frequencies and percentages of environmental references are listed below

in Table 4.

 

14

Table 4 Environmental References Source Frequency % Distracting climate 13 59% Cooperating teacher 4 18% Repertoire 3 14% Car trouble 2 9%

Finally, to address the second research question, the researcher collapsed codes from each

category into the topics most frequently discussed across the 72 journal entries. Consistent with

the previous four tables, the most predominant themes that preservice teachers referenced in their

bi-weekly journals included revelations about teaching (33%), positive interactions with students

(29%), rehearsal techniques (21%), and a distracting climate (17%). A broader discussion of

these findings is included below.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to examine journal entries that were associated with

school-based teaching episodes in an instrumental music education methods course. The specific

research questions associated with this study included (a) What topics do preservice teachers

choose to discuss in their semi-weekly journals and (b) Which topics are discussed most

frequently? Descriptions of the findings from this study are discussed below, followed by

implications for stakeholders who engage in school-university partnerships or other field-based

teaching experiences. Generalizability of the findings is limited, however, and should be

interpreted with caution. Because field experience partnerships differ widely in terms of scope

and configuration, transferability of these implications to other settings is not always possible.

The first aspect of this research focused on the topics that preservice teachers chose to

address in their semi-weekly journals. Overall, students wrote reflections related to internal,

 

15

interpersonal, pedagogical, and environmental issues that they experienced during their 6 weeks

of site-based teaching. Internal musings tended to center on turning points that left participants

with newfound understandings of teaching and student conduct, which mirrored several of the

attributes that Lindroth (2014) synthesized. Entries were both dichotomous and united, in that

contradictory emotions (e.g., nervousness and confidence, self-doubt and comfort) operated in

tandem and ultimately resulted in what students believed to be improved teaching, which may

speak to the kaleidoscopic emotions that teachers of any stage face on a daily basis. What

softened this process, however, were the warm receptions by middle school band students and

the interpersonal skills that were refined in the process. Band students were reported to be kind,

helpful, and funny, which dispelled preservice teachers’ preconceived notions about student

learning, including negative assumptions about student behavior and underestimating school

students’ musical ability.

Preservice teachers also were forced to navigate environmental issues such as classroom

interruptions and distractions, which, according to preservice teachers, dented concentration and

disrupted their train of thought. Although preservice teachers’ journals included several astute

observations, their reflections did not indicate that they were able to make explicit connections to

the kinds of modifications they wished to make in future lessons, which is akin to Silcox’s

(1995) and Tarnowski’s (1997) notions of transfer difficulty. For example, statements such as,

“I’ll have to do a better job of X next time,” were widespread, although specific steps for

achieving those goals were not included consistently in journal entries. However, it is possible

that students contemplated these strategies intellectually or wrote personal reminders and simply

chose not to include these ideas in their journals. Furthermore, there might not have been enough

time for students to enact such changes in their teaching, given their limited time on the podium.

 

16

It is possible that guided journal prompts, rather than an open-ended one, could have assisted

preservice teachers in arriving at more specific conclusions.

The second aspect of this research focused on the topics that preservice teachers

addressed most. The majority of responses dealt with new revelations about teaching as well as

surprised reactions to positive student interactions. Preservice teachers reported on in-the-

moment classroom events that altered their perceptions of teaching, as well as their role and

responsibility in delivering specific, accurate, and responsive instruction. These findings align

with previous research that showed preservice teachers’ ability to synthesize, respond to, and

become transformed by classroom teaching events (Beeth & Adadan, 2006; Moore, 2003).

Rehearsal techniques were still somewhat elusive to preservice teachers, however, most likely

due to the fact that these school-based teaching episodes were their first with student musicians.

In fact, the student who wrote the second week of teaching, “I’m supposed to enjoy teaching, but

I just dread this,” submitted a journal entry two weeks later that read, “I’m enjoying teaching

again. I hope I get to teach middle school during student teaching so that I can adjust to it and

become even more comfortable and happy with it.” Accordingly, rehearsal segments that were

perceived as particularly successful or unsuccessful were attributed to self-diagnosed levels of

mastery—high or low—with regard to rehearsal techniques, and were thus magnified in

students’ journals. These self-realizations may be catalysts that help prepare preservice teachers

for the early years of teaching (Burton & Greher, 2007), and in creating effective new teachers in

general (Abdal-Haqq, 1989).

Journal entries also showed a distinct pattern in attempts to align school-based teaching

episodes with materials learned in university coursework (e.g., rehearsal strategies, chunking,

complete teaching cycles, credible teaching personas). This process of reconciling university

 

17

coursework with real-time teaching is related to previous research that has addressed the

importance of introducing students to contextual realities through collaborative partnerships with

schools (Burton & Greher, 2007; Goodlad, 1991; Kruse, 2011a; Moore, 2003). Perhaps the

following student’s journal entry encapsulates several of the preceding discussion points into a

single passage, depicting revelation, reflection, preparation, and appreciation:

I was surprised at how much trouble they had with the rhythm, and with my response. I was not prepared to work so much with the rhythm. This experience taught me not to make assumptions about what they can do. I need to have more options planned for my lesson so I can adjust to work with what they are having trouble on. I also learned through teaching today that I need to be more clear with how I am conducting. Throughout this experience, the students have made me feel welcome. I like how it does not feel like we are annoying them or taking time away from something more important. Finally, preservice teachers were struck by the distractions and interruptions that were

alive in the classroom, and reported their concerns intermittently, which is consistent with

previous research (Baumgartner, 2011; Campbell & Brummett, 2007, Kruse, 2011a). Pep

assemblies and spirit days typically occurred at the end of each week, and these interruptions

were documented in corresponding fashion in students’ journals. These moments tended to

“throw” preservice teachers, because they were unable to compartmentalize distractions and felt

as though they could not maintain their lessons. Similar conflicts were noted in Tarnowski

(1997). Nevertheless, some students welcomed the challenge, acknowledging that this would

sharpen their skills for the realities they undoubtedly would face during student teaching and

beyond. As other researchers have suggested, refining teacher focus may be but one stage on the

way toward effective teaching (Alexander, 2003; Polk, 2006; Powell, 2010.).

While the results of this study might contribute to an understanding of preservice

teachers’ capacity for reflecting on their own teaching, it is important to acknowledge the

limitations associated with this research. This study incorporated a small sample of participants,

reflection journals were the only data sources collected, and, similar to Conway and Hodgman

 

18

(2008), journal submission mortality became a consideration during analysis. Additionally, the

sample used in this study was comprised of students who elected to participate, so there were

additional perspectives from non-participating students that were unheard.

The findings in this study may not apply directly to other field experience or school-

university partnership models, but they could provide insight for creating and supporting

pertinent reflection mechanisms that enrich music teacher preparation programs. First,

incorporating and facilitating various forms of fieldwork reflection might afford students

multiple opportunities to reflect on their teaching. Written, verbal, digital, and even “reenacted”

reflections could allow preservice teachers to contemplate, articulate, and process several

different angles within the context of a music classroom, and to work through solutions and

strategies for future teaching episodes. Second, posing a combination of both guided and

unguided journal prompts during field experience might be another way to monitor preservice

teachers’ level of transfer and application between teaching episodes. Moving between guided

and unguided reflection formats could assist preservice teachers and faculty members alike to

consider and explore more deeply the “and then what?” aspects in teaching (Atterbury, 1994, p.

8). Third, promoting fieldwork teaching as action research among preservice teachers might

complement other forms of reflective practice and may help cultivate a sense of “real-time”

teaching in music education methods courses. Preservice teachers who are able to adopt a

dualistic teacher-researcher persona could improve decision-making skills that are grounded in

observation and sound music pedagogy. Fourth, mentoring preservice teachers in reflective

practice overall, as Knapp (2012) and Conway (1997) suggested, could be a prime consideration

for creating a space in which music teacher educators and preservice music teachers can enact

authentic and effective journaling practices. These possibilities might provide even greater

 

19

contextual relevance for preservice teachers as they refine pedagogical skills and instincts,

expedite transfer between reflecting and teaching, and discover their potential as school music

educators.

 

20

References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1989). The nature of professional development schools. ERIC Digest, 4-89 (ED316548).

Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14. Atterbury, B. W. (1994). Developing reflective music educators. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 4(1), 6-12. Baumgartner, C. M. (2011). An examination of a pre-service music teacher’s reflection across consecutive teaching placements. Visions of Research in Music Education, 18. Retrieved from http://wwwusr.rider.edu/vrme~/ Beeth, M., & Adadan, E. (2006). The influences of university-based coursework on field

experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, 17(2), 103-120. Berg, M. H., & Miksza, P. (2010). An investigation of preservice music teacher development and

concerns. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(1), 39-55. doi: 10.1177/1057083710363237

Bullough, R. V. Jr. (1991). Exploring personal teaching metaphors in preservice teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 43-51. Burton, S. L., & Greher, G. R. (2007). School-university partnerships: What do we know and

why do they matter? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(1), 13-22. Campbell, M. R., & Brummett, V. M. (2007 January) Mentoring preservice teachers for

development and growth of professional knowledge. Music Educators Journal, 93(3), 50-55. doi: 10.1177/002743210709300320

Conkling, S. W. (2003, Winter). Uncovering preservice music teachers’ reflective thinking:

Making sense of learning to teach. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 155, 11-23.

Conkling, S. W. (2007). The possibilities of situated learning for teacher preparation: The

professional development partnership. Music Educators Journal, 93(3), 44-48. Conway, C. M. (1997). Reflection and the methods course. Southeastern Journal of Music

Education, 10, 148-158. Conway, C., & Hodgman, T. M. (2008). College and community choir member experiences in a

collaborative intergenerational performance project. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(3), 220-37.

 

21

Goodlad, J. I. (1991). School-university partnerships. Education Digest, 56(8), 58-61. Grant, P. A. (2001). The power of uncertainty: Reflections of pre-service literary tutors.

Reflective Practice, 2, 237-248. Knapp, N. F. (2012). Reflective journals: Making constructive use of the “apprenticeship of

observation” in preservice teacher education. Teacher Education, 23, 323-340. Kruse, N. B. (2011a). Navigating on-site teaching experiences: Multiple perspectives from two school-university partnerships. Visions of Research in Music Education 19. Retrieved from http://www--usr.rider.edu/vrme~/ Kruse, N. B. (2011b). Sociological perspectives of school-university partnerships: Contextual learning through three lenses. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 115-121. doi: 10.1080/10632913.2011.566080 Kruse, N. B. (2012). Silent partners: Uncovering middle school and high school students’ perceptions of their roles in two school-university partnerships. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 31(1), 63-71, first published on September 24, 2012 as doi: 10.1177/8755123312458438 Lee, H. J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 21, 699-715. Lee, I. (2008). Fostering preservice reflection through response journals. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 21, 699-715. Lindroth, J. T. (2014). Reflective journals: A review of literature. Update: Applications of

Research in Music Education, 1-7. doi: 10.1177/8755123314548046 Moore, R. (2003). Reexaming the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher

Education, 54(1), 31-42. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis book. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Polk, J. A. (2006). Traits of effective teachers. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(4), 23- 29. doi:10.3200/AEPR.107.4.23-29 Powell, S. R. (2010). Examining preservice music teachers’ perceptions of initial peer and field- teaching experiences. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21(1), 11-26. doi: 10.1177/1057083710386751 Schmidt, M. (1998, Fall). Defining “good” music teaching: Four student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 19-46.

 

22

Siebenaler, D. (2005). Music and service learning: A case study. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 15, 23-30. Silcox, H. C. (1995). A how to guide to reflection: Adding cognitive learning to community service programs (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Brighton Press. Tarnowski, S. (1997). Transfer of elementary music methods and materials into an early practicum experience as seen through preservice teacher journals. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 131, 42-43.

 

23

Nathan B. Kruse (nathan.kruse@case.edu) is Associate Professor of Music Education and Coordinator of Graduate Studies in Music Education at Case Western Reserve University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in vernacular music, research methods, and music cognition. His research interests include adult music education, ethnographic traditions of community music, and school-university partnerships. Kruse earned a Ph.D. in Music Education from Michigan State University, an M.M. in Music Education from the University of New Mexico, and a B.M.E from Butler University.